left from norfolk. there was a man from lynchburg who was sort of the point person for gathering people interested i travelingn to brazil. in terms of your other question, that's more difficult -- economics versus politics. i would say again the fact that the brazilian government was offering land grants, you could essentially go and have free land to work. obviously that was a draw to people who had been disenfranchised by the war. at the same time, that was accompanied by, even if you had trepidation, it was accompanied by the post-surrender uncertainty. it is difficult to get into that

mindset. what is the future of the south going to be? how long are there going to be union soldiers running towns and cities? is there going to be widespread abuse? what is going to happen? that kind of fear and anxiety coupled with the economic factor , those elements worked in tandem to draw people to brazil. >> my name is dennis. can you describe higher profile can veterans that went down south or were these ordinary folks? professor clabough: again, going back to -- i brought up lee and his disdain for people leaving the south. some of that stature had

alternatives after the war. there were things he could do because of his rank and fame and standing. so it was more, i would say junior officers and below. i mentioned the colonel william norris settlement. i would say from that military rank and below were predominately the people who left. again, going back to dr. colt's question about why the motivated to go, there had to be an economic need and also possibly a political drive as well. or a political concern about what the future held.

>> england and france never did recognize the confederacy. did brazil? or did brazil take sides in the war? professor clabough: it is interesting. throughout the war brazil was essentially pro-southern. largely the reason for that, you would think it might have to do with the issue of slavery. as near as i could discover, it had mostly to do with the brazilian emperor they were still an empire at that time. the emperor's name was dom pedro ii. essentially, the u.s. ambassador to brazil at the time, from washington d.c. had personally

insulted dom pedro ii at some social occasion. and so that was the main reason that there was not a closer association between the brazilian government and washington, d.c. it had less to do with politics and more with the whim of the emperor. so again that's where governmental and cultural differences come into play. the ambassador, the u.s. ambassador was kind of a pushy person. that did not go over well with someone who is titled as emperor. yes, sir? >> in connection with the settlement of some ex-

confederates in other latin american countries was there in the case of the brazilian ex-confederates, >> whether any x confederates who might have organized the migration to brazil. >> if i understand your question correctly, for lack of a better term people sent to brazil ahead of time and organized? >> even to the point of organizing people here in the united states to get on board ships and go down. >> certainly there was an

operative for the brazilian government to help round up people in the central virginia area who might be interested in going to brazil, identify them, and get them organized to travel to their and charter ship to send them on their way to brazil. there were people like that in different cities in the south who championed the brazilian alternative, and then there were southerners in some cases usually the male of the family who would go ahead to scout out the area, check out where the land grants were going to be, make arrangements with the brazilian government, and then it they did not like what they saw, then they might come back

and consider staying in the south. more often than not they went. >> i was thinking of that because of this example you gave of the farmer who had been there for some time. it sounded like the area he settled in was not as promising as some of these other areas. >> most of the areas -- brazil is an enormous country -- where north, west, and a little south of rio de janeiro, and that is essentially a tropical like environment -- i mentioned the banana trees, for example, for the tennessee gentlemen. you know, the ground is typically very rich, but as you

saw, the main problem was not having the proper equipment, funding, and the language barrier as well. for the most part, they had to stick together much of the way that immigrants do when they come to the united states today is -- today. if their mastery of english isn't strong, they tend to develop subcommunities within the larger community to help them cool -- pool that was the situation with the confederate routers -- confederados. >> thank you. >> this will be our last question. >> do you know if there are other countries other than brazil for these e

x-confederates, or these african-americans who may have been freed or they immigrated on their own to other countries in south america? >> oh, sure, yeah, my research was specifically on the con federados who emigrated to brazil, but there were some who democratic -- it some who emigrated -- some who immigrated to mexico as well. britain, france, and even africa. there is a film from the 1990's called ghost in the darkness. it's about a cold -- a former

confederate soldier who becomes a professional line hunter in africa. a lot of the southerners ended up all over the place. there are all kinds of stories. those kinds of disastrous -- disastrous occur at the end of war. that is part of the reason why there has not been more research accomplished on the confe derados. although i challenge students and scholars to research in this area. i think it's a promising area of research particularly if you're interested in pan americanism and portuguese. >> to help you with your answer to that question -- did that

help you with your answer to that question? >> sure. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, casey. >> thank you, patrick. >> thank you for enlightening us on such an interesting subject. casey has two books. women of war just came out. i'm sure he will be happy to sign copies for you. we have our 10 minute break and then we will come back with our final speaker, john hennessy.

>> we will be back to our coverage of the closing of the civil war seminar at longwood university in 10 minutes. we will hear from john hennessy that chief historian at fredericksburg. we will be back live on american history tv on c-span three. while we are waiting for the seminar to resume, we will take a look at our recent look at the south carolina archives. >> we are at the south carolina department of archives, a government agency established in 1905 to promote south carolina's cultural heritage. documents dealing with the history of south carolina, local municipalities counties,

anything dealing with state government is here. all of our documents are stored on three floors of climate controlled space which we call the vault. that would be large football field sized rooms. they are kept at 60 degrees fahrenheit and 50% humidity. i want to show you some of the most important documents dealing with columbia's history. even national history, we have documents year of great national significance. we're standing in the research room. this is where the majority of our customers,. . when they come here, they asked to see original documents. these are treasures in relation

to south carolina in columbia history. this is the act that established columbia's the state capital. march 22 1786, twos where miles of land -- two square miles of land. we have this plaque that shows the location, and the high ground is marked, the side of the state capital. this is important because all state government had been located in charleston. as the parse -- population grew, those residents felt burdened by having to travel to charleston to conduct state business. so this mood the state capital to the center of the state to return formative of fact on the state of south carolina. we also have the other important thing that happened to the city

early on, the establishment of south carolina college. so we have this on december 18, 1901. some fascinating things about it is the state set aside $50,000 for the college, and $6,000 a year, which made it the best funded public university in the united states of america. this 1846 plaque shows the area that had been set aside for the state college within the city on the bank of the river. lots of great architectural drawings. this is a joint of the courthouse and post office. it dates to 1870. this was the first eight federal construction project during

reconstruction in columbia. much of the city have been devastated by fire in 1865, but this was the federal government's efforts to have a nice architectural presence in the city. that building is now city hall and still located here. i think an architectural record is a viable part of the states passed. especially if you have various renditions of a certain building. it gives you an idea what the architect was thinking at the time, how architecture was meant to be emblematic of certain purposes of state government and this building in particular is a beautiful structure that the federal government put money into to make a presence as the city had been devastated by war. it gives you an idea into the

mindset of people at the time and the federal government's efforts to compensate for what happened in 1865. the last two documents we have are of great significance nationally. this is the november 24 1832 ordinance of nullification. south carolina had undergone a decade of decline in prices. south carolinians were reacting to the terrace of 1828 -- tariffs of 1828. they were terrorists who benefited -- tariffs who benefited manufacturing. they met in columbia in the house chambers of the old

statehouse and decided to nullify the tariffs. they thought there was a chance that they would have some sort of support from andrew jackson but jackson convince congress to pass a bill which basically said that tariffs would be collected in charleston. if they were not collected, he would send federal troops to collect them. it looked like there would be war between the state and the federal government until congress passed the compromise terrace that was it -- tariffs that was acceptable to south carolinians. the nullification of that bill is technically still on the books. that was the first time that south carolina had shown a confrontational pose towards the

national government. it set the stage for what would happen 28 years later with the ordinance of secession. this is the most important document we have in this building. it is one of the nations most important document. without this document, there is no civil war. no other state was going to succeed in less south carolina seceded first. a convention of the people of south carolina decided at the end of the first day unanimously to secede from the union, and the convention moved in whole by train down to charleston. the decision to secede, the decision to fracture the government was made here in columbia, south carolina. we are fortunate that the

original ordinance of secession is surviving here. it is a wonderful document and we took it around during the centennial in 2010. the people of south carolina could see a document that represents hundreds of thousands of lives lost and millions of dollars in property damage and the emancipation of millions of african americans that came about as a result of this document. that is the husband -- everyone on here would lose everything they had. they would end up any less at the end of the war. many of them would die during the war. many of them would lose children in the war. i don't believe that many of them thought that what they were doing would result in the destruction of everything they loved, the traction of

everything they had, and the loss of so much. there were a lot of miscalculations at the beginning of the war. this was the greatest miscalculation. during our budget hearings, we took the ordinance of nullification with us to our budget hearings because nullification has been a topic that a lot of representatives have discussed and in the news a great deal in south carolina, and so this document and how it was created and its impact provides a lot of lessons for south carolinians. we want people to understand that no matter what path we take , someone has been along that path before. we should learn from those lessons from the past. to do that, you have to have the documents, the history available to use the can learn from it. that's why we try to make these documents available to everybody. we publicize them as much is

possible to teach people about the past so that they can learn lessons from it and plot a prudent course going forward. >> on american history tv on c-span three, back live in virginia for the closing of the civil war seminar. this is cosponsored by longwood university and appomattox court house national historic park. the battle for appomattox courthouse was the final engagement of the confederate armor of robert e lee and the army of northern virginia. live coverage here on c-span three. >> [inaudible]

two books about the events here. you can have one of those books signed by william thompson. he can do that afterwards. i know casey will still be around if you have not had a chance to pick up one of their books and get it signed. i know john hennessy, we have a couple of his books as well, but afterwards everybody is usually in a rush to leave. i want to thank you for coming out and participating. i see many of you here today that were here friday evening. i think everything has run very smooth and well, and we hope you will come back next year. bring friends, as you can see we still have room in the auditorium for more people to come to our seminars. thank you very much. i look forward to seeing you at appomattox for the anniversary events or on the two are -- or

on the tour in may. david, if you will,. come up. >> you still have time this afternoon to go out the high if you want to walk a little bit. -- go out to high bridge if you want to walk a little it. also, we have those exhibits going on at the art gallery that we have been showing the photos of. our final speaker this morning is john hennessy. john is a graduate of the state university of new york in albany.

he works for the new york state historic preservation office and for the national park service. as you know, most recently fredericksburg and spotsylvania. he was the superintendence of the park. he is the chief historian. he has written a number of books , the battle -- the first battle of manassas and the end of innocence. it is now being reprinted in a revised edition out later this year. of course, the return to bull run, the campaign and battle of manassas. that is the standard work on the second manassas campaign. today, john will be talking about freedom, the civil war and its legacies. john hennessy.

[applause] >> good morning. thank you, david. i don't know if any of you recognize the effort that goes into a conference like this. the staff is working like dogs to create a program that will connect all of you hopefully in a meaningful way to this history. it's for a good to be here. this is one of the few long-standing, and during conferences every year. most of them have faded away but this one simply does not. every year it seems to get better and better. it is nice to be here. i'm going to turn the tide on you this day a little bit and ask you some questions rather than have you ask me questions, although we will get to that as well.

why is the civil war so dam hard for americans to deal with? we will talk about the war as it extends beyond appomattox, but i want to start with a story to kick us off. a couple of years ago i did a program and have done a number of programs, but this one was for a well red educated, aware, broad thinking group. it was a program on slavery. and emancipation. it was a pretty straightforward historical program. when i was done, i asked the audience, there were about 60 or so people, i said, and they were probably a little baffled by this, i said who do you think about it for for president in the last election? and, this was in 2009, so was john mccain or barack obama. about 80% of them raise their

hand and projected or guess that i voted for barack obama. i'm not going to take you whether they were right or wrong. my point is, isn't that interesting? that i could give a talk about history so distant is a hundred and 50 years ago and people, thoughtful people, what conclude from that conclusions about my political thought. isn't that interesting? that is part -- were going to get back to the question as we go on today. we will revisit that towards the end, but i just wanted to share that as kind of a kickoff. now, the thing about how we portray our history and how we perceive our history, we see it to the statues of our founders

our military heroes, frozen in time, almost always a noble forms. we see our history and priceless artifacts, on platforms in light in museums, often times almost surrounded by pillows to protect them. we see lincoln's second inaugural address on the walls of the monument to him. the memorial to him and washington, d.c. we see gettysburg left as it was, or so we think. even our civil war battlefields, when we are permanent, would we do. we remove the light from them the modern intrusions. we make them set pieces. we make them static. our minds eyes can work in an uncluttered environment.

that is a remarkable experience. the monuments that i believe -- that populate these places are frozen in time. gettysburg, a monument sits -- yes, they were there. but they are also over there and over there and over there, but we take our history and very simple forms. some of this is not to argue against these things, but some of this is clearly unavoidable. there is one commonality to all these things. they portray a person, a moment, or event in its simplest and often most flattering forms. as a nation, we are addicted to simplicity. we love to embrace the truisms

that run through our lives. washington may not have cut down the cherry tree, but he never told you lbj was the last of the frontier presidents, he would've told you. and it -- an exhibit i did would take you that as well. grant was a butcher. he was noble. gettysburg was the turning point. appomattox is where the nation reunited, at least that's what the billboard is to say. appomattox seemed to capture the simplicity of the whole thing. into the story. all of these things are ingrained deeply in our culture in our memory, some of them appear in school curriculums across our land. if you will, think for a minute about the memories of your own

life, our memories are also -- always far simpler than the lives were as we live them. they are neatly organized, far more organized than our expense actually was. the same is true for our national memories. we compile it into distinct periods of time with distinct characteristics characterized by ideas or fax -- facts simplicities that become conventional wisdom. more than that, these nuggets of conventional wisdom that run through our history, through our culture, often become over time governed by rigid rules. especially when there are people who have a personal stake in the history that we are talking about.

now, what happens to violators of those conventions? those who acknowledge complexities rather than simplicities? or worse, deny the simplicities altogether? what happens to them? they are invariably assaulted in some way -- not physically, of course -- they are labeled unpatriotic. they are labeled unproductive divisive revisionist politically correct. those of the words that we use as -- when somebody violates one of our cherished simplicities. we often react to that as a body does to an infection. we try to contain it and stamp

it out, as your bodies does, and render it in her there is a great irony in that. it is our commitment to conventional wisdom and the simplicities of that all those things entail is that commitment to simplicity that invites contention. it backs argument. so it is our commitment to simplicity that provokes people to argue the complexity of these events. and so our history does not sit on like that platforms in museums. it is not embodied by statues in our parks or monuments on our battlefields. instead, history rides a raucous

tide, constantly shifting, reeling back, always cut by crosscurrents, always slowed by eddie's, and every scroll -- swirl, every time someone disrupts the flow as we perceive it, it either engages and false or does affect someone. what we thought we knew or understood 80 years ago, or even 30 years ago was sometimes now no longer believed, or we understand differently. the symbols that we once embraced as a nation are now seen by some as offensive. the conventional wisdom that often undergirds our understanding of our past is often so simple as to be wrong or at least incomplete or debatable. so we challenge, we debate, and that really ticks people off.

which brings me of course to the civil war. in its place the legacy in american culture. i would offer it as a more complicated place. there is no event in our history we argue about more than the civil war. from its cause to its purpose to the details of 100 battles, we argue. we can't even agree on its name. rephrase variously depending on the perspective of the namer, the war of northern aggression, the war between the states, the war of the rebellion -- which was once the official u.s. government name for a good the war for independence, the second american revolution, the war for emancipation, and probably two or three dozen more. in no other time do we have a

historical memory so carefully considered, so consciously shaved and manipulated -- consciously shaped and manipulated as a civil war. no other event in our lifetime has active constituent groups that patrol the intellectual universe trying to ensure that americans see this event in a particular way or from a particular perspective. today, i would like to engage in a bit of a discussion, engage you in a bit of a discussion posing you in question, answer a few, but i have no idea what the answers are. all all of it is to provoke some thought and some consideration among you. now, bear with me, some of these questions may seem a little

discordant, scattered at first but i will try to bring them all together here at the end. i want to start with something that i have been thinking about the last year. america preserves battlefields, somewhere between 60-80,000 acres. just a quick informal survey online suggests that americans have preserved more civil war battlefields than the rest of the world combined has preserved for all wars in all of history. i'm talking about formal reservation. more preserved battlefield land related to the civil war exists than rest of the world combined for all wars fought. why is that? how did that come to be?

why is it that a society that likes to think of itself as being non-militaristic, and in our essence we are preserves that'll field land to such a degree? now, this is one i will offer some ideas on. our traditional view of the civil war was born of the postwar time. one of the most remarkable phenomenons in american history or world history is the reconciliation from the reunification of our nation. think about the fact that in the united states cap today are seven statues to men who supported the rebellion against the federal government during the american civil war. they don't do that in syria or libya. they do it here.

that is remarkable. now there are lots of ways, and the reconciliation was incomplete in some areas as scholars have shown. how did that come to pass? part of the answer is that when you want to make up with somebody, you find the common ground. a place were you can both be comfortable, you do that in life , and some degree we did it on a national level. the aftermath of the civil war had races and immense issue in america. slavery and its legacy was a painful one. there were a few things that everybody could agree on, at least most people, not everybody. the american soldier, dressed in

great or blue, was an amazing phenomenon of history. and so in our search for common ground, we found that ground literally on the battlefield. the great movement for preservation of battlefields was initiated in the 1880's and 1890's. when these veterans were at the height of power serving as government and industry leaders. it was because the battlefields ironically, these places of conflict became places of comfort. so americans have always put tremendous emphasis on these places as a tool of

reconciliation. manassas, the key part of the battlefield the, donated to the park service, stipulated that the government would i care and preserve this battlefield without prejudice to north or south and not subtract from the glories due to confederate heroes. the dedication speech at frederick berg's park i helped manage. in 1927, it said we do more than dedicate these fields and memories of things that are passed. we consecrate them in the spirit of lee and linking to a more perfect understanding between south and north and to an abundant increase in brotherly love. the national park service took responsibility for these battlefields five years later. for the next 50 years or so they would faithfully carry out

that charge. to manage these places as places of reconciliation with the rhetoric of affection that surrounds them always, where americans can come together and understand the war on a very human level. just to give you a sense of how deep this tradition is and how it is perceived by the public, a couple of years ago a colleague of mine and i were doing a tour in fredericksburg for black churches in town to we were doing it to her -- to her -- to of slavery related sites. ur people were very interested. one gentleman pulled me aside and said to me, are you going to get in trouble for doing this?

i said, what do you mean? are you going to get in trouble for doing this to her -- tour? are you allowed to do this sort of thing? i found that have deep perception is. now, here's another question for you. 50 years ago, the nation came together to celebrate ubiquitous centennial of the american civil war. the one 50th has a different tone. -- the 150th has a different tone. everything that smacks of celebration -- and there is a more contemplative approach. we talk about that in our organization.

why the change? what in 50 years has changed? we have gone from celebrating to consciously and in a reflective way commemorating this war. i think there are a lot of things. since 1963, however many years that is, 40 some years, we have been at war for 24 years. in my lifetime, our country has been at war for 24 of my 56 years. there is no other time in american history that approaches that. we are tired of war. we are tired of war.

for sure. there are other things. our culture has changed. the late, great jeremy russell who is the great advocate for that'll field preservation, and as many of you know what often argue against the complexities of these stories. he said, it was his view, but it applies to the centennial time this nation's future and survival rests on all americans having a shared experience, a shared understanding of american history, a shared language, and a shared culture, culture that unites us, not when the divides us. common understanding and a single memory. the obvious question is whose memory? white southerners? northern abolitionists?

was it emancipated slaves? whose memory do we take? of course, prior to the centennial, that was an easy question. because history to some degree always reflects those who possess or are in power. since the end of the sesquicentennial, since the beginning of the centennial, the dynamics of our political conversation, the dynamics of power within our society have changed dramatically. women's rights movement, you will hear a great do more about civilians than you ever did before. i think most of us are glad for that. it is an important part of the story. the civil rights movement, of course african-americans are going to seek to hear their

story in our nations history. and so it goes on. nukes scholarship -- new scholarship, the job of academics is to agitate us all and some fashion, to provoke us, and they do. they challenges. they ask questions. some of them we don't like. some of this makes us feel a little uncomfortable or unstable. now, all this and a lot of new scholarship on something called memory, memory studies that have flooded the market in the last 10 years, have convincingly shown us that thoughtfully consumed that many cultural assumptions about the war, though simplicities that we cherish so much, were indeed purposely shaped in order for

that nation to achieve reconciliation. and now, we are in a different time, and so many of those assumptions are being challenged. slavery was not benign. we treated our slaves well. you often heard that. i heard that in my career. we have all heard that. we know that is simply not true. nor was it an honest -- in virginia in 1860 or 1861. the emancipation proclamation was not meaningless. grant was not simply a pusher. lee was hardly devoid of political -- lincoln's views evolved as the war progressed. slaves did not stand by morley -- standby loyalty standing by

for southern independence and confederate victory. all of these things have been challenge, and most of them have been illustrated to be far more complex than the simplicities that we once embraced. some of them have been proven just flat wrong. now, none of this should be a surprise to any of you are any of us, because americans always challenge each other. that is what americans do. we challenge each other to be better constantly be better in the present, and we challenge each other to see our history more clearly as well. sometimes that challenge comes from ink tanks and people sitting in big towers -- think tanks and people sitting in big towers, or in the congress or white house. just as often, it comes from the people themselves.

it is this process of constant challenge that renders what one generation believes insufficient for the next. it has always been so. it always will be so. content as we might be with our perspective on certain issues today, our grandchildren 50 years from now are going to look back and say what were you thinking? just as we look back on those state troopers at the edmund pettis bridge or pick a dozen moments in american history. what were they thinking? this process of challenge and revision and improvement is what

america does. it is noisy, raucous, sometimes painful, but arguments and failure and discord are every bit as much a part of the american fabric as success virtue, and community. americans will never sit quietly. it's conscience will never be cold. it's just the way that we are. -- is conscience will never be calmed. in the 50 years since the centennial, we have changed. we should not be surprised by that very in the 50 years going forth, for those of you here for the bicentennial, we will have a very different conversation. here is another question. why do we argue silver surface

late -- so will sit firstly -- is there at a historical topic in american history where there is a wider span of opinion than that question? a ladder volume of discourse than over that question -- a louder voice in a disk course than over that question --? why do we argue about it now? if you roll back time to that secession of 1860 in 1861 and set down and set down with the delegates of the virginia or south carolina secession convention and said to them, we know what you are doing and it has nothing to do a slavery.

they would've said, what? at the time, of course, they said it had something to do with slavery. not everything to do with slavery, but certainly something to do with slavery. after the war -- and i went suggest you to the main spring in an answer to this question is rooted in our very, very personal connection to this war. how many of you are related to participants in the war? holy cow, probably 60% of you. how many of you are related to a confederate who fought in this war? most all of you are. and so, when the president of the confederacy in 19 us to --

1902 stood before her convention and declared that this is loyalty to principle, not a building monuments, but the vindication. when a former confederate general charged -- gave the charge of the veterans to the sons, he said, to use sons of cover letter veterans, we dedicate this to the cause. if you want to google that, it appears online more than 8050 times, the charge for the sons of confederate veterans. [no audio]

>> they could not agree. so you see by these issues of slavery, the cost of war, all of these things didn't disappear from postwar discussions. the bitterness did not all go away. in many ways, they were over all

by the search for common ground, and that search for common ground focused on the common virtues that northerners and southerners shared, which are found where? on the battlefields. even extends in today, a former heritage for the sons of confederate veterans, we don't need to give visitors an entire history of the antebellum south so they come away with one side or another. why is there this sensitivity? even today? i would suggest to you it is because as this room evidences so many americans have not just an intellectual or patriotic or scholarly connection to the war but a personal connection to the american civil war.

if slavery caused the war, what does that say about your ancestors? does it make you uncomfortable? it certainly makes many people uncomfortable. now, i would suggest to you that we ought to be at a point in our national development where we can see that the deeds of our forebears are not always a testament on their character. indeed, ought we not to see those deeds rather as a testament on the morals of the time? i think all of us hope as we sit here today and ponder our grandchildren and great-grandchildren, thinking back upon us, and saying, what?

that they don't interpret the issues that have permeated our lifetimes and with which we have struggled as a society is a testament on us as individuals but rather as a testament on our times. and times change. so, another question. you can start squirming any second now. [laughter] did the union soldiers, some of them racists dockworkers from boston and philadelphia, or illiterate farmers from western new york, for minnesota, or even lawyers from new york city, the union soldiers who marched and

april of 1865. did march for freedom? the day marched into slavery? -- did they march two and slavery? i will put the question differently and provoke some shaking or nodding subheads. did the confederates who rushed onto the field at gainesville or held the stonewall inn fredericksburg, did they fight to preserve slavery? to protect slavery? i don't see anybody offering up any opinion in terms of shaking or nodding their heads. if you work it is civil war site for any amount of time